The standardized citizen

Yet, Macedo et al. argue that schools “often teach about citizenship and government without teaching students the skills that are necessary to become active citizens themselves” (2005, 33). Even in civics and government courses, which Kahne, Chi, and Middaugh describe as “the part of the formal high school curriculum that is most explicitly linked to the democratic purposes of education” (2006, 391), conversations about citizenship rarely extend beyond one’s right to vote. Recent movements to standardize public education in the United States have only exacerbated this notion by mandating content taught to students. (p. 351)

--AND--

Perhaps the most salient conclusion drawn from this study is that standards, like textbooks and other educational materials, are created to perpetuate a certain ideological position (Apple 1979). Over a decade later, the SOLs [Virginia's Standards of Learning] still maintain a largely conservative approach to citizenship that harkens back to the political climate surrounding the creation of the standards (Fore 1998). Although liberal civic elements can be found in both the civics and government curricula, they do little to alter the civic republican perspective found throughout each of the standards. (p. 356)




Journell, W. (2010). Standardizing citizenship: the potential influence of state curriculum standards on the civic development of adolescents.

In his article, Wayne Journell explains different, at times conflicting, views on the role of citizens and citizen education. He then goes on to argue that state standards, because they are set through a political process and those with political power have specific shared concerns (particularly maintenance of the status quo), tend to favor conservative conceptions of the "good" citizen. In these passages, Journell explains both the focus of his work and his findings. Journell found, by defining different ideas of citizenship and citizenship education (civic republicanism; civic education; deliberative; social justice; participatory; transnational; cosmopolitan) and by dividing Virginia's Standards of Learning (in civics, economics and government) into those categories, that civic republicanism is the most frequently expressed citizenship stance. This stance is a conservative stance defined by duty, patriotism, obeying laws, volunteering and serving the country (most frequently exemplified as military service). In essence, this stance is not defined by questioning authority, addressing inequities, or actively stirring protest. It is the opposite of Frederick Douglass’s advice to active citizens: “Agitate, agitate, agitate.”

Journell goes on to argue that it is the responsibility of teachers to ensure that the other aspects of citizenship, particularly those described in the participatory stance, are represented in the curriculum and in the instructional practice of classrooms. Teachers can do this by approaching “mandated content” through discussion, deliberation and debate, and also by problematizing citizenship and government.

Fostering meaningful democratic citizenship is, to me, the most important goal of social studies education. Without my concern for citizenship education, I would probably study to be an English teacher as my interest in literature is at least equal to my interest in the content of social studies (predominantly history and geography). This article spoke to my concerns that citizenship education, when defined and directed by those who have already gained influence in American politics, generally does not fulfill the needs of a vital, justice seeking democracy. If students are bored by government and civics classes, they will likely do little more than the bare minimum, which is voting. As Journell remarks in the beginning of this article, voting is often described as the primary way of influencing politics. In fact, it is one of the least influential acts an individual can engage in and, particularly given the structure of American democracy, replaces religion as the opiate of the masses.

Journell’s concern that schools may not do a good job, at least during class time, preparing students to be part of a democratic community, is widely shared. One antidote often offered is service learning which, in the Guardian of Democracy is advocated as one of the six proven effective practices of citizenship education. Service learning is valuable in that it fosters civic attachment and civic virtues (unless it is poorly implemented, in which case it may destroy both of those things). However, it too is fundamentally conservative. It invites students to engage in direct voluntary service to address problems that many people would argue should be government responsibilities, including cleaning a public park or beach or painting a public school. Additionally, while service learning can foster citizenship, there is nothing particularly democratic about it. Democratic skills are those which empower citizens to influence decision-makers and public opinion; service learning addresses neither of these. This only increases the urgency of Journell’s call to teachers to make meaningful instructional decisions that put a focus on democratic skills and dispositions.